• Open a new homeless shelter on Morley Street, Brighton
    The building will make a big advance towards ending rough sleeping in Brighton & Hove by 2020 and be self-financing with housing benefits and volunteers. The building at 1-2 Morley Street, known as 'PsychoSocial', is currently unoccupied, meaning it would be easy for the council to purchase. It is also in a great location, as it is close to an excellent health centre, thereby lightening the load on A&E at the hospital. We've had two major successes so far in improving and increasing the amount of night shelters for Brighton's homeless. First of all in 2017, we won a campaign for Brighton and Hove Council to commit to opening night shelters for rough sleepers. Then we won a campaign for Brighton and Hove Council to have shelters open 365 days a year. These achievements only cam after thousands of us signed a petition. Brighton Centre should be open this November (2018) but by the middle of winter users will have to relocate to other venues. Now, we need a permanent shelter for Brighton's homeless, and Morley Street is the perfect location.
    4,532 of 5,000 Signatures
    Created by John Hadman
  • Kick out Capita from Barnet Council now
    The recent successfully prosecuted fraud case where a Capita employee stole over £2million from Barnet Council underlines the urgent need for the Council to take back control of all of the former Council services from Capita. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-45641513 Barnet Council commissioned Grant Thornton (GT) to undertake a major review to identify how such a large scale fraud had been able to take place. This project, called Project Rose, was given a budget of “up to” £500,000 and has been on-going ever since. The review found: • Lack of budgetary controls • Not carrying out basic bank detail checks • Inexperienced managers responsible for large amounts of money • Lack of written financial procedures and checklists Barnet Council agreed to pay Capita £252.54 million But, Barnet Council have already paid Capita £352.41 million with FIVE more years to go! Barnet Council is in financial crisis with a budget overspend of £10.3 million this financial year and a funding gap of £66.8 million over the next three years. Frontline services such as street cleansing, waste and recycling, Libraries, social care are all facing more and more cuts that are already affecting Barnet residents. Capita Plc are in their own financial crisis. Their Share Price has dropped from £13 a share to under £1.50 a share in the space of the last two years. On 11 December 2018, Barnet Council Policy and Resources Committee will decide on whether to end both contracts. We are campaigning that they VOTE to end both contracts and begin the urgent process of taking back control of those services. End Details of the Grant Thornton Review on Capita https://www.barnet.gov.uk/citizen-home/council-and-democracy/finance-and-funding/Financial-controls.html Is this the end of Capita in Barnet - Grant Thornton's report is a devastating critique of Capita's dismal performance http://reasonablenewbarnet.blogspot.com/2018/09/is-this-end-of-capita-in-barnet-grant.html Project Rose: the devastating report Barnet Tories didn't want you to read http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.com/2018/09/project-rose-devastating-report-barnet.html Damning report slams Capita and financial management at Barnet Council http://barneteye.blogspot.com/2018/09/damning-report-slams-capita-and.html
    1,590 of 2,000 Signatures
    Created by Barnet UNISON Picture
  • Stoke-on-Trent City Council, stop persecuting the homeless
    Stoke-on-Trent has the dubious distinction of being called the Monkey Dust capital of the U.K. A blite on the reputation and economy of Stoke-on-Trent. We the undersigned, are disgusted and ashamed that Stoke-on-Trent City Council and Staffordshire Police, rather than tackling the supply and use of drugs and other street crimes, are focusing on the homeless and fining them £100. This proposal is not only sadistic but increases the pressure on the police, courts, probation services as well as council resources, during a time of peak demand and will do nothing to reduce genuine homelesses. We demand that as the Councillor responsible for Communities, you take immediate action to stop the persecution of the most vulnerable people in our city and drop plans to fine the genuinely homeless. This is the second year in a row that Stoke-on-Trent City Council has attempted to victimise the homeless and profit from their misfortune In a move so disgusting that Scrooge himself would be ashamed by it. Homelessness will not end by hiding the problem nor profiting from their misery but by acting with compassion, decency and vision. To be clear, we have no objection to the prosecution of criminals, who feign homelessness to take advantage of the public or aggressively beg for money, however, we seek an acceptance and protection for the genuine homeless.
    1,345 of 2,000 Signatures
    Created by David Craggs
  • Ban combustible building materials now
    We are the bereaved families and survivors of the Grenfell Tower fire. On the 14 June 2017 we lost 72 of our loved ones. We will never get our loved ones back but we are determined to make sure that something like this never happens again. That’s why we are campaigning for change and to make sure everyone can live in a safe home. It should seem obvious to anyone who saw the pictures of the Grenfell Tower fire that dangerous combustible materials must be banned but the Government still hasn’t made a final decision on whether to introduce one. And we know some companies that make products like those used on the Grenfell tower have been arguing against a ban. We’ve spent months speaking to experts to understand how Grenfell tower, where our families lived, came to be so dangerous. We know that combustible materials and a shoddy refurbishment contributed to the dangerous fire that night. We’ve uncovered an industry and system that seems to put profits over people and failed to keep families safe, using dangerous materials and dodgy testing practises. We want to make sure dangerous combustible materials are banned from high rises, schools, hospitals and any building were vulnerable people live or work. And any materials used are independently, properly and transparently tested. It’s over a year since the fire and these materials are still in use. We urgently need to ban these dangerous materials to make sure people are safe in their homes.
    61,141 of 75,000 Signatures
    Created by Grenfell United
  • Save Oathills Lea, Tarporley
    Do you want to save Tarporley's precious, affordable retirement flats, Oathills Lea? Where will our elderly population go, if this complex is closed or sold off by Weaver Vale Housing Trust? Oathills Lea is currently under review and its residents are worried sick, as you can imagine. Built in 1970, Oathills Lea has 23 retirement flats for residents aged 50 and over. It is the perfect location, especially for the less mobile residents and those who no longer drive. The bus stop is just 100 yards; the Co-op 250 yards; post office 250 yards; village centre 100 yards; doctors 0.5 mile(s). All of this helping our older villagers maintain their independence. Oathills Lea is the only accommodation of it's sort in the village. Not only is it made up of individual flats, but there is a communal area where the residents congregate in the afternoons to socialise with each other. Many of it's former and current residents have always lived in Tarporley and others have sold their homes and moved here to be closer to their families. None of us want to be evicted from our homes and it is putting the more vulnerable villagers under immense pressure and stress. What will Oathills Lea be replaced with ? Weaver Vale Housing Trust, recently you were promoting the flats as a "Home for Life". Why have you gone back on your word ? Why aren't you filling the empty flats, when given the ageing and increasing population of Tarporley and the surrounding villages there is probably a demand for them ? If anything more retirement flats are likely to be needed over the years. PLEASE sign our petition and share it with your friends and family
    180 of 200 Signatures
    Created by Deborah Wood
  • Kennington kicking up a Stink!
    The stink and odours are damaging quality of life for residents in Little Burton Farm, and Kennington The constant and cumulative odour exposure has become "severe odour annoyance"- a major concern of the WHO (World Health Organization) Headaches and other health risks are a common occurence Children can't play outside in their own gardens Doors and windows need to be permanently closed Utilizing gardens for BBQ's and other social events is severley affected With 1000's more homes planned in the area and increased sewerage, things can only get worse
    744 of 800 Signatures
    Created by Cllr Marion Martin Picture
  • SAVE HARTSDOWN
    The people of Thanet, demand that the land located at Hartsdown Park be allocated to the existing tenants in situ, allowing them to continue to enjoy uninterrupted use of their premises. The community units are to be retained, allowing each tenant the opportunity to purchase their areas either individually or as a collective, ensuring that all community projects currently sited are allowed to continue to serve the community.
    826 of 1,000 Signatures
    Created by Save Hartsdown Picture
  • Don't give Trump planning permission
    Trump wants to build 500 “luxury” houses on a protected Aberdeenshire coast. These homes will be unaffordable to anyone except the rich, featuring villas planned to sell for over £1 million. No plans for affordable houses, which were promised as part of the planning permission, have been made public. They do not appear in the proposed development brochure. This location is entirely inappropriate for a housing scheme; it’s far from amenities and is opposed by people living nearby. Planning permission for the golf resort was issued on the basis that the “economic benefit outweighed the environmental harm”. But the rare protected dunes that form part of the estate have been “partially destroyed” since Trump began construction on the resort, and there’s been little benefit to the community. Trump cannot be trusted to deliver on his promises for this resort, and this new development will further damage the beautiful North Sea coastline whilst lining his own pockets. What’s more, we’re signing Scotland away to a man who deals in lies and hate, which will damage the country’s reputation.
    19,554 of 20,000 Signatures
    Created by TrippingUp Trump
  • Housing Policy Needs Urgent Change
    Increased supply and quality comes from competition and incentives, not from over regulation or divisive taxation policies. There's a hole in the bucket and it's not being refilled quickly enough. Private landlords are selling up in droves, thus reducing the pool of better quality homes available to rent. Private investment into much needed rental housing is being strangled, and this MUST STOP! National and Local Government policies are discouraging private investment into rental accommodation, especially in recent years. This is already negatively impacting housing development and the wider economy. If the supply of private rental accommodation continues to contract, demand will cause rents to increase and ordinary people will find it even harder to find flexible and affordable housing. Taxing suppliers, whether directly or by stealth, is always passed on to consumers. In this case, that means upward pressure on rents. There have been several forms of stealth taxes and indirect taxation applied to private housing providers. These include; the taxation of finance costs, increased Stamp Duty Land Tax, banning tenant fees and Selective Licencing. Government and Local Councils need to stop milking private housing providers like cash cows and reverse all such policies before further suffering is caused. Badly informed campaigning could also undo all the good things the Housing Act 1988 achieved. We urge Government to be mindful of this.
    1,873 of 2,000 Signatures
    Created by Mark Alexander
  • Disability Housing Discrimination
    Under the Equality Act 2010, a house cannot be refused to be let to someone because of disability, gender, race, sexual orientation or religion; these are known as protected characteristics. However - with suitable disabled accommodation being very sparse among social housing - downstairs toilet facilities, first floor apartments, bungalows, etc, are being refused to be let to potential tenants on the basis the potential tenant is in receipt of a government subsidy towards rent. These subsidies are awarded because individuals are unable to work due to disability, yet disabilities are a “protected characteristic” under the Equality Act. No matter whether you are willing to provide references, admin fees, bonds, or consent to a credit search. Due to lack of social housing, disabled people are being pushed into the private rental market yet being discriminated against and refused housing there too. No person should be discriminated against for something that is beyond their control; where else are disabled people supposed to live? It’s a daily struggle to live in a house that’s not suitable, I think it’s abhorrent that disabled people are being refused to rent in the private sector because they receive a government subsidy towards rent. Take a look at properties for rent near you and see how many say "no DSS"! Imagine how difficult it would be for someone disabled looking for somewhere to live. It is discriminatory. Please take a moment to sign this petition!
    107 of 200 Signatures
    Created by Katie Baldam
  • Help the Arkell Grove, Upper Norwood residents
    Residents safety due to compromised site access Small community; living in residential close, with currently 12 privately owned homes and a few rented garages. 
The houses are built wall to wall, parking and access to the close is limited to one small road. A few council garages are being rented out to some of the home owners(for over 28 years); all other non-garage tenants/property owners park on the street in front of homes and or in overcrowded near by streets. The council has only just notified the garage tenants that the garage area is now identified as a site for the development of 3 storey block of 9 flats. Since there is no other access to the close other than by a small road, the increase amount of traffic, lack of parking space will have an overbearing impact. Fire engines may encounter difficulty accessing the close in the eventuality of a fire and access will be limited for most rescue services, as well as for waste and recycling bin lorries. (Cars have already been damaged by recycling lorries due to the current lack of space within the close, documented evidence for these incidents can be provided). Parking issues Note: There is no public transport in the immediate area/ the local demographic is families and retired couples. Past recorded fatalities due to congested road on Biggin Hill (situated next to Arkell Grove) have not been taken into consideration in the planning development safety survey. The removal of the garages would force its current renters (over 15 cars parked inside or outside the garages) to locate currently ‘unprovided’ parking. In addition to this, 9 flats means an average of 12 cars (calculated using Croydon’s statistics of average number of cars per inhabitants as per 2011’s census) which will also require parking. Arkell Grove itself is fully occupied by its residents’ cars. No provision has been made for any parking for the new building, to add to this, additional cars from local residents will require to locate parking in ‘unprovided’ congested adjacent roads, such as Biggin Hill. A Controlled Parking Zone would be of no help, as the area is such that only residents park here (as opposed to streets located nearby developed areas) and would be be additional cost for residents. Residents and children safety Note: as well as families, the close has two active ofsted registered childminders / home based. In this close live numerous families with very young children who use the close as a safe ground, they play and meet in the area of the proposed site. A) Having a building site in such a small and confined area would certainly present a danger to the safety of these children. (heavy lorries, and excavation) B) The new house development would remove the direct area in which family and children play and meet. Overshadowing / Loss of sunlight The height of the building is such that any house in its shadow would lose access to the sunlight they currently have. Residents Privacy The planning is talking about the development of a block of flats which would look directly over the gardens of the adjacent houses and would remove the direct access to their properties. Environment One of the adjacent gardens has a very tall and mature tree on the border of the proposed site and the development plans would compromise the roots of this tree, rendering it unstable and therefore at rick of dying and falling. Sewage issues and waste disposal All the immediate area to the proposed site privately owned, with no access to the site, how will the issue of sewage be resolved? Croydon has just announced that they are reducing waste collection in this area. Again, this could be a major health problem for this area. Questions: 1) Housing mix. The council policy states they need to built approx 30k by 2031, quote: 60% need to be 3 bedrooms or more as this is largest demand. So why so many 2 beds flats are being built? Why not build 2 storey homes? This would be a realistic target and would resolve many of the concerns raised by local residents. 2) Access to sites. How all these issues are being answered? What about the poor access to the site, the narrow roads and lanes; *Cars being required as public transport is not where it should be.. One of Croydon new policy is looking to address issues round creating additional access methods, where is this being addressed in this proposal? What about sewage and waste disposal, when croydon has just announced that they are reducing waste collection in our area…? 3) If the permission was granted, has the following been taken into consideration? Which days a week will the work be carried out? ie solid 5/6 day week or on and off some weeks? Could quieter works be done weekend? Access: Clearly only one point of access , how will this be addressed? 1. Deliveries Times (this is a very important point. Early morning when childminders get children dropped off OR over weekend when local children playing outside is not acceptable.) 2. General car congestions. Frequency of construction vehicles, What and when? initial large delivery of bricks that would block access, pavements, danger to children playing. This is all health and safety Builders need to address. Builders will need restrictions in place for them to park on road. Has this been accurately assessed? We have raised a petition to provide the list of individuals part of the local community and or relatives supporting the appeal if the development permission is granted
    164 of 200 Signatures
    Created by Sarina McCavana
  • Let Paul Bamber and son stay in the family home
    Family home since 1982, i moved back in to help my father from illness and to stop my depression, my father passed away suddenly and the council want me and 15 year old son out of the house, my youngest son comes every weekend, has adhd and will not accept change into a new house, explained this to the council but they will not listen, tried to pay the rent but they will not accept it from me.
    220 of 300 Signatures
    Created by Paul Bamber